I feel that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. Christians and Catholics need to stop throwing their religion in everyone's faces. If Christianity is a such a loving religion, then how come whenever a woman gets an abortion she is treated like crap?

No, abortion is not murder, about 3 months of pregnancy is when it is not a legal human, for it is just a zygote and the heart and brain is not fully developed.

People need to stop worrying about what other people are doing and worry about what they do. If you don't like abortion then don't get one, easy as that. There is no need to hold up obnoxious pick-it signs at women who chose to get an abortion, what if they were raped?

NO ONE is holding a gun up to your head and is forcing you to have an abortion, worry about what you do and how many kids you want or if you want kids at all.

If men were to get pregnant I swear abortions would be legal and free and abortion clinics would be on every street corner.

While reading Pro's opening, it's easy to get distracted by the many irrelevant claims that Pro makes. The question for this debate is whether abortion needs to be legalized in all states (nevermind whether it already is legal in all states). It's irrelevant whether Christianity is loving, it's irrelevant whether Catholics are obnoxious, and it's irrelevant whether men would legalize abortion if they could get pregnant.

Let's just talk about the points Pro made that are relevant.

First, Pro says, "I feel that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body." But since when did a feeling amount to an argument? Pro is just expressing autobiography here, and it has no bearing on whether abortion ought to be legal in all states. If Pro had made the claim that women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, then that would be directly relevant to the issue under dispute.

Let's give Pro the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what Pro meant to say. Well, there are two reasons for why that doesn't lead to the conclusion that abortion needs to be legalized in all states. First, because abortion isn't just something a woman does to her own body. It's something she does to the growing body inside of her. Second, because women do not have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. For example, they can't sell their organs on ebay.

The second point Pro makes is that abortion isn't murder because for the first three months, the unborn isn't a "legal human." It's just a zygote whose heart and brain are not fully developed. This argument is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, because there's no such thing as a "legal human." "Human" is a biological classification, not a legal classification. But even if there were such a thing as a "legal human," that would be irrelevant because the question for this debate is not whether the unborn already have protected status under the law, but whether they ought to have protected status under the law.

Second, the unborn are human through every stage of developement. Zygote is not a distinct species from human. Rather, it's a stage of development that humans go through. None of us became human by progressing through different stages of development. We didn't come from zygotes; we once were zygotes.[1] The fact that we are human through all stages of development is evident in the fact that we have the same human DNA through all stages of development and that our parents are human. If zygotes were not humans, then they would not have the capacity to progress through the rest of human development.

Third, the fact that the brain and heart are not fully developed at 3 months of pregnancy doesn't mean the unborn isn't a human up to that point. After all, the brain isn't even fully developed when the baby is born. It continues to grow after that. If having a brain that isn't fully developed means you're not a human, then even newborn babies are not humans, which is absurd.

The third point Pro makes is that abortion is none of anybody else's business. Pro says if you don't want an abortion, you shouldn't get one. This argument begs the question because the argument only makes sense if there's really nothing wrong with abortion. After all, nobody would say, "If you don't want to rob banks, then don't rob them," and use that as an excuse for why bank robbery ought to be legal. And nobody would say, "If you don't want slaves, don't own them," and use that an excuse for why slavery ought to be legal. In cases like bank robbery and slavery, we would never agree with Pro that "People need to stop worry about what other people are doing and worry about what they do." So Pro's application of this principle cannot be used in the case of abortion. We worry about what people do all the time. That's what law is for!

In conclusion, Pro hasn't given us any reason to think abortion needs to be legalized in all states.

Yes, I am aware I wasn't given much information on justifying my opinion, because I waiting for what YOU had to say, but now that you said what you said, here's the fun part. Are you ready??

As you stated that there is no such thing as being a "legal human" yes, I am going to give you credit on saying that but I will not 100% agree.

Though it may be a human even when the woman is 3 months pregnant or less, is that human alive? No. Like I said the heart and brain have no fully developed, matter a fact a heartbeat isn't even detected within 3 months of pregnancy prior to the zygote.

Now, let me ask you a question. I happen to be sitting in my chair in front of my computer, which is probably what you're doing too. If my heart were to stop right now and my brain were to 100% shut down; what would happen?

Yes, my friend. Indeed, I would be dead.

Am I still a human? Yes. Am I still a female human? Yes. But am I dead? Yes.

So if someone were to come in my room and saw me dead, and they started stabbing me repeatedly and possibly started shooting me, is that murder? No.

If someone where to input stab wounds and bullets into my already dead body, the body that has already been deceived minutes ago. That person would not be a murderer because my body was not alive before they stabbed me.

SO THEREFORE if a woman is getting an abortion it is not murder and it is not wrong.

Is it a human? I'm not going to deny it but i'm also not going to condone it but however what matter is that is that human alive.

Pro concedes that the unborn at three months is human but now denies that it is alive. But it's clearly alive because it has all the basic requirements for a living organism--growth, reproduction, reaction to stimuli, and metabolism.[1] Of course it's alive! If it weren't alive, it wouldn't be growing and developing.

Pro is right that if Pro's heart stopped right now, Pro would die. But it doesn't follow that a zygote without a heartbeat is dead. A frog whose lungs collapsed would die, but that doesn't mean a tadpole is dead. Just as frogs/tadpoles require different organs to be alive at different stages of development, so also to humans require different organs to stay alive during different stages of development.

The rest of what Pro said about whether stabbing is a dead body is murder follows from her conclusion that zygotes are dead, which is false, so we can dismiss the rest of her post as not being relevant.

You're wrong, a zygote isn't a alive. The zygote barely has arms and legs. And my defiance of alive is a human with a beating heart and a properly functioning brain, but most importantly, THE HEART. Sorry hun, but just being the zygote is growing doesn't necessarily means it's a live.

A zygote growing is growing into a LIVE human. Am I saying it's dead? No. But it is growing into becoming that live human. If I put water on some sort of play- doh and it started growing, does that mean the play doh is alive? No, it just means it is reacting to the liquid it has encountered.

Now don't get me wrong here but I'm not comparing a zygote to play doh, I am just stating just being something grows it does not mean it's alive.

Another example, when I'm making pancakes and a pour water in the pancake mix, it expands. Does that mean the pancakes are alive? Nope!

Now once again, I'm not comparing a zygote to pancakes, but that was just another example on explaining that just because something grows it expands, it is in fact not alive.

Now don't get me wrong here, I love children, I love babies, I'm not against children or babies. I would in fact like to have one of my own one day. But when it comes to a woman having to be forced to have one because something in the "Bible" says it's wrong, well that's when i'm going to defend that woman.

I think it is ridiulous the way religous people treat women when we find out they've have or is getting an abortion. Now this is where my feministsic point of view kick in but why are we not getting upset at the father? Why are were not yelling and holding up pick-it signs at the man who possibly raped that woman? Why are we not shaming the man that didn't give a single damn when he found out he was going to be a father? Why are we not trying to confort the woman when she found out if she gave birth, she would die. Or that she did the math and found out she was not financially stable to take care of this child. And in fact, this child will be born into poverty.

And it's funny because after everyone begging the mom not to abort her child and she decides to keep the child. And when people see that she wasn't kidding when she said "the father said he won't care for the child and I can't afford it" because STILL shame the woman and call her a dead beat. Women can't win either way.

But what I'm saying that abortion is sometimes what's best for the mom and for the soonly born child. Now I know what you're thinking "welfare". And though welfare can solve some issues the mom and the child is facing, that child will still have to live through the life of poverty. And I know that sounds selfish, and you might think I'm implying that all kids deserve to live that rich and fancy life. But I'm not.

I'm telling you that the states not letting a woman aborting her child- the child that was made by a man and woman and the man walking out on the possible mother. The man whom the woman thought would be by her side at all times, and when this announcement of pregnancy occurs, its just a matter of time that man is out of her life.

Con, you're probably thinking "well just adopt the child!"

Yes, adoption is an option and some babies are adopted as soon as they come out of the womb.

But that is not always the case.

Do you know how many kids are in foster homes?

About 600,000.

And the average age of a child entering a foster home is 2 years old. And 80% of kids in foster homes suffer emotionals problems. 10% of those kids in foster homes will be homeless. 44% of foster kids have no idea who their parents are. And 9% will stay in foster home from birth until they turn 18.

So when people say "just adopt!" they don't realize that could put a child in a bad situation.

And like a said before, adopting your child for some mothers can be as easy as 1,2,3. But most of the time, it isn't that easy, depending on what type of person the mother is.

And yes, you were right before, it is good to worry about the BAD things people do such as : ACTUAL MURDER. rapes, robbery, abuse ect. But a woman making a choice? A woman making a choice that would be the best for her? And possibly this future born child?

Worrying about a woman going to a clinic and getting a procedure done as likely as brain surgery, or a heart transplant.

Hell, lets throw pick-it signs at people who get brain surgery or a heart transplant, why not!

And lets yell at and protest against people who are obese, who eat shellfish, who get tattoos, who shave, work on Sundays, cut their hair, wear torn clothes, and eat pork because those are abominations of the Bible too!

So I think I have proved my point, con. I hope that you are a LITTLE convinced on why I think abortion needs to be legalized in every state and if you're not at the end of the day it is your opinion. And I know there are people who agree with me other than you. As you have noticed I have not name called or heckled at you for your opinion and nor will I ever do that in a formal debate. You are entitled to your own opinion and I am entitled to mine.

Pro disputes that the zygote is alive on the basis that it doesn't have arms and legs. That's plainly absurd. The man in this video is obviously very much alive even though he doesn't have any arms and legs. https://www.youtube.com...

I explained in the last round that a zygote is alive because it has all the basic requirements for life--growth, metabolism, reproduction, and reaction to stimuli. Pro responded by giving examples of things that grow but are not alive. Play dough and pancakes do not serve as counter-examples, though, because they don't have metabolism and reproduction. The zygote has all of these things. If Pro wanted to refute my argument, she needed to give an example of something that has growth, reproduction, metabolism, and reaction to stimuli but was nevertheless not alive. Since she gave no such counter-example, she failed to refute my argument that the zygote is alive.

Pro goes on to make more irrelevant claims. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. The resolution for this debate is that abortion ought to be legalized in all states. It's irrelevant whether religious people treat women unfairly or whether men get shamed or not.

Pro brings up some new arguments in this last round (a slight breech of debate ettiquette), so let's address those.

She says that abortion is sometimes in a woman's best interest. That may be so, but that's not a good reason to make it legal. The death of an old parent is sometimes in the best interest of the children because then the children get their inheritance, and they don't have the burden of taking care of the old person anymore. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to euthanize our parents. So just because abortion might be in a woman's best interest, that doesn't mean it should be legal in every state.

Pro argues that abortion ought to be legal because adoption isn't always an option, and the man might walk out on her. To support her claim that adoption is not always an option, she points out the number of kids in foster homes.

This argument fails for a couple of reasons. First, because it's irrelevant. The fact that somebody might end up in a foster home does not mean it should be legal to take their life. We would never kill somebody just because their parents don't want them or can't take care of them. Pro's argument only works if she can establish that the unborn are not human or not alive, but I have already refuted her arguments to that effect.

Her argument also fails because the many children in foster homes didn't get put there immediately after birth. They're there because their parents died, were arrested, or for whatever reason couldn't take care of them. There is no shortage of people adopting new born babies. In fact, people are on waiting lists to adopt new borns.

Pro goes on to make irrelevant points. She appears to be comparing the picketing and protesting of abortion to picketing and protesting brain surgery and heart transplant. Whether picketing and protesting anything at all is socially acceptable is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion needs to be legal in all states.

In the end, Pro reassures me that she's not going to heckle me or call me names and that I'm entitled to my opinion. I appreciate that.

And that's it. Pro hasn't given us any reason to think that abortion ought to be legalized in every state. The burden of proof was on her in this debate since she affirms the resolution. Since I refuted all of her arguments and pointed out the irrelevancies that crept into her posts, I think it's safe to say she hasn't established the resolution.

If you do to want to murderer don't do it. It's ok if other people do it right. It's not their business. What about rape. Bud out if you don't want to rape don't do it but men have the choice to rape. Oh did he hurt the women? To bad it's his choice I won't stick up for her cause it's not my business. Sorry that we're trying to defend innocent BABYS and not murderers who kill them. Everyone deserves a chance and no one can take that persons chance of life away.

Con knows what he is talking about. The fetus has cells which are split and grow and die. If cells are alive, then shouldn't the fetus be alive. I also wander who we have missed out on who have been aborted. Someone who was aborted could have found the cure to cancer. And also raped victims can get the morning after pill which stops conception. If they choose not to come forward why should she be aloud to terminate a life after it begins. And just give the child up for adoption after he or she is born, and make sure the adoptive parents know what the situation is. The kid will be fine and live a normal life. Pro said that women are treated poorly for getting abortions. I would agree they do, but they are choosing to kill someone. Yah I would be mad at them too. They chose to have sex and should be ready to suffer the consequences of labor. That doesn't mean that rape victims should be treated badly, i think they would be treated with more respect and kindness, because they have gone through so much. Pro's argument infers that life can be determined by the mother, and if so then are some babies alive and others are not. Take this example. A woman is sick and is having to deliver her baby really early to save the baby and herself. She is driving to the hospital to deliver the baby she is hit by a car and she and the baby both die. Is that a double homicide? same example, but the places are changed the woman is going to an abortion clinic and she is hit. Is that a double homicide? An hour from the point she was hit the baby would have been born and alive. Does the place or the woman's thoughts the thing that can determine if the baby is alive. I hope not.

radicaalllll, we should remember that rape babies aren't rapists. How would you like to be born from a raped mother, and then while growing up in school, get picked on by your peers because they know you were born from rape? How would you like to be born from a raped mother, and then to have that very mother chastise you despite how you didn't cause the event which violated her?

Please take some more time to look at the "deeper situation". You keep focusing on feelings which leads me to believe that the actual reason you support abortion is because many people are just acting out excited libidos they didn't consent to have, and that they're bullied by other emotionally judgmental people in society from developing cultured personalities which would let them have other things to do besides getting it on. For example, many rugged individualists happen to be pro-life, so you oppose their position. If this is your real reason, then please expand on it and I'll change my vote.

I'm shocked! Hahaha, I thought I was going to win this one despite the fact I spent lots of time organizing how I was going to state my side of this debate and how I've given way more information on my part. But I guess you can't win everything!

radicaallll, while you have every right to expand on your arguments in the comment section, I hope you understand that what's said in the comment section can't be factored into the voting. The voting is based strictly on what happens in the rounds since that's where the formal part of the debate took place with the rules and the character limits, etc. I generally avoid continuing the debate in the comment section for that reason. I wouldn't want to inadvertently influence the voting process.

I know the abortion rights is a 50/50 opinion prior the the American people. But I also wanted to add something I forgot to add to round 3 concerning rape victims and abortion.

I understand that there is a small percentage of rape victims who get abortions, but lets not forget that there is a large proportion of rape victims who never talk nor report their case. So lets not forget that.

Secondly, would you really want a rape victim to suffer the pain of childbirth because of her rapist? Not to mention the victim is already into a deep depression because of what happened, and being pregnant while you're having those emotional struggles can surprisingly harm the baby.

If the mother is keep on thinking about the traumas of her rape, which is what rape victims go through, then she might feel anger towards her child. And that being said, she won't care for her pregnancy, and she will have to look at her child and be reminded of that horrid event.

I feel like that's rape all over again. Having her belly rippled and having to live through the pain of pregnancy for 9 months and then childbirth because of the awful moment where an ignorant man have the nerve to rape her.

And what if the victim is young? That adds more pain and trauma to the mother.

Like I said, only about 3% of abortions are performed on rape victims and it could be more prior to the unreported cases. That statistic seems to have people forget about rape victims, but just because the statistic is small, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I just wanted to tag that along an extra thing I forgot to jot down in round 3

And yes Daktoria, I do get into deeper situations because I feel that just saying "Abortion isn't murder and it's just a woman's choice" isn't a good enough argument for me.

If it's a situation where a voter wants clarification about something, i guess that's okay, but I'm always just reluctant to do anything that would inappropriately influence the voting. It's hard to have a discussion about the content of a debate without, in the process, trying to strengthen the points you made in the debate. That's just me, though.

Reasons for voting decision: Irrelevant arguments and comparisons from Pro, which Con had refuted all throughout. I don't recall seeing citations in regards to the adoption statistics Pro provided, which I'm not surprised about, so I cannot give points there. Interesting debate here, even though I still support abortion rights and for the right of men to have their own form of say in whether or not they choose to parent.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro admits to making appeals to emotions, yet is closedminded to the potential of humanity. Ironically, despite the admission of being a "feminist" she comes off as believing that people have to perform good works to represent a predestined calling. Until they do, she believes they should be objectified. That is she basically believes in the patriarchic Protestant Work Ethic. She also comes off as a pragmatist in basing her belief in people being allowed to do what they want with their own body which is comparable to patriarchic rugged individualism that's closedminded to how practitioners can be abusive. If anything, feminism is a regulatory ideology that collectivizes individuals for the sake of social responsibility. Lastly, Pro ignores how murder is defined not just by death, but by malicious intent as well. Society is not a biology experiment. We are dignified people who deserve more empathy than animals.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro admits to making appeals to emotions, yet is closedminded to the potential of humanity. Ironically, despite the admission of being a "feminist" she comes off as believing that people have to perform good works to represent a predestined calling. Until they do, she believes they should be objectified. That is she basically believes in the patriarchic Protestant Work Ethic. She also comes off as a pragmatist in basing her belief in people being allowed to do what they want with their own body which is comparable to patriarchic rugged individualism that's closedminded to how practitioners can be abusive. If anything, feminism is a regulatory ideology that collectivizes individuals for the sake of social responsibility. Lastly, Pro ignores how murder is defined not just by death, but by malicious intent as well. Society is not a biology experiment. We are dignified people who deserve more empathy than animals.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.